Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S J And K Aluminium Co Igc Sidco Samba

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise Jammu (Petitioner) bearing CEA No. 11/2023 is dismissed as being barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appeal was delayed by 1231 days. The Petitioner's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the Petitioner had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Court found that what was stated by the Division Bench in the order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020, applied on all fours to the present application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal itself was dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise Jammu (Petitioner) filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1231 days, for which a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The Petitioner's counsel conceded that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the Petitioner also sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. However, in that instance, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The present application for condonation of delay was made in relation to the appeal bearing CEA No. 11/2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise Jammu, bearing CEA No. 11/2023, is barred by limitation, considering a delay of 1231 days. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner sought condonation of delay, arguing that similar grounds for delay had been presented in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State in this matter. However, the Petitioner's counsel acknowledged the precedent set by a previous Division Bench ruling.